Yves Perron
Berthier—Maskinongé, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. (1125) I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields.”
“Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me.”
“Speaker, as well as those who occupy the chair in your absence. You are all outstanding in this role. We greatly appreciate your impartiality, most of the time, indeed nearly all of the time. We are grateful for your work. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and in all the other parties, as well as the independent members.”
“I exchanged letters with Alberta's minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with.”
“What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that. My task today is to discuss Bill C-30 .”
“The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling. We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case?”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Yves Perron, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, the Mauricie region recently lost one of its pioneers. Jean-Paul Diamond dedicated many years of his life to his community and region. Not only was he committed to social causes like the Association des personnes handicapées du comté de Maskinongé, the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint-Alexis-des-Monts and the Festival des neiges, Mr. Diamond was also a prominent figure in the political world. Mr. Diamond was first a councillor and then mayor of the municipality of Saint-Alexis-des-Monts. He also served as reeve of the RCM of Maskinongé for roughly 10 years. He then had the privilege of representing his region in the Quebec National Assembly. Politics aside, we must recognize the sincere commitment and dedication of Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, my very esteemed colleague does indeed represent a magnificent region. The regions have been neglected. The current government is only tending to the things that might pay off come election time. That is the answer. The government thinks it has nothing to gain from the regions. It threw some crumbs at the Gaspé Peninsula because it just lost a seat. That is all. The government used to draft its budgets to appeal to the NDP for vote-grabbing purposes. Now it is appealing to the Conservatives for vote-grabbing purposes and maybe with a view to getting a majority. That is the sad reality.”
“For example, on the agricultural file, I mentioned the modernization of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That said, the government is claiming to be improving risk management systems and AgriStability coverage, but when we read the fine print, as my colleague said earlier, we see that the government is not putting money into those things. It is investing $33 million, but there is another line underneath that that says that it is taking $33 million away. It is taking money out of the system. Where is it going to make those cuts? It is always like this. We want transparency, integrity and intellectual honesty. We would be very comfortable voting against the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to investments in the Magdalen Islands, it is pretty ironic that there was a minister in that riding for over 10 years, that these investments were promised for 10 years and that they were never made. Now that a Bloc Québécois member has taken over the riding, the government has suddenly decided to keep its promise. Sometimes we wonder whether the budget is being used for electioneering purposes. This is a good thing for the people in the Magdalen Islands. It is good news and we will take it, but I cannot help but feel skeptical about the motive behind this measure. The government is saying that we need to vote in favour of the budget because it contains all sorts of good things. I mentioned some those good things earlier in my speech.”
“Today, we have to choose between voting with the Conservatives, who want to get rid of the industrial carbon tax, or with the Liberals, who already got rid of the general carbon tax. This tax was beneficial for people with lower incomes. We do not look at who we are voting with. We look at who we are voting for. We always vote for Quebec and Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it was intentional, but my colleague just gave me a great assist. First, for businesses, I mentioned the wage subsidy. I would like my colleague to work behind the scenes to implement this, because our businesses need it to avoid losing legacy knowledge. My colleague asked me a question, but I will turn it back around on him. I am well aware that he has worked in Quebec and that he knows the reality we face, including the money that is needed to fund the health care system. How does he reconcile his decision to vote for a budget with the knowledge that health care transfers are actually decreasing in real terms? We are not choosing between voting with the Conservatives or with the Liberals.”
“He comes from the countryside, from a rural area. He should understand that agricultural producers need a break. (1250) Regardless of any sops they throw our way, we have a moral obligation to vote against this budget. Since the government is proposing tons of negative measures while dismissing all of our requests, are we going to vote for the budget if it offers to throw in one of our long-standing minor requests as a small favour? Certainly not. I ask members to vote against this budget because it is bad, unreasonable and disrespectful of future generations.”
“Is that not the role of the government? The government is going to ask us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, Quebec will produce about half as much beef next year because farmers cannot afford to rebuild their herds. Then the government will make speeches about how the people who feed us are doing such an extraordinary job. Can it please be consistent? For example, we requested an exemption from the excise tax on alcohol, such as mead. There was a comma missing in the paragraph when it went to committee, because it was drafted so quickly. Berry-based alcohols are not included. We have been asking for this for a long time. The former finance minister was from Toronto, so her lack of awareness was understandable, but the current Minister of Finance represents the riding right next to mine in Mauricie.”
“However, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency lacks the resources it needs to be more effective. We are currently working on this. There is a lack of resources for the next generation of farmers. Farm Credit Canada could finance 40-year low-interest loans, which would cost the government nothing. Our beef farmers in Quebec are having a hard time rebuilding their herds right now because the price of calves has gone up and financial institutions are reluctant to lend them money. A financial institution is not a charity. Sometimes financial institutions try to pass themselves off as such, but they exist to make money. They look at risk. They tell the farmer that the price of calves has gone up, but that by the time the farmer wants to sell the meat, the price is not going to be as high, so they do not want to provide financing.”
“At the same time, they are changing the temporary foreign worker program too abruptly—I am choosing my words carefully—which means that our businesses, our SMEs, for which there is absolutely nothing in the budget, as my colleague pointed out, are being forced to let go of skilled, trained, experienced employees who have learned French and whose children go to school here. Employees have to leave because new ones have just arrived and the quotas have been exceeded. Can they not get three years to adjust? These are all things that make us want to sigh. Let us talk about agriculture. This is an issue that I have been raising here since 2019 and that is very important to me. There are some minor items in the budget, and I will be a good sport about them. I think that modernizing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency can only be a good thing.”
“Employment insurance has not changed. Health transfers are not keeping up with inflation. This means that they are making cuts. Now the Liberals would have us believe that they are generous and kind, that they are being good to us. We proposed bringing back the wage subsidy support program that was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, because it worked well, but the Liberals are not interested. We have forestry and aluminum companies laying people off, and we are afraid of losing that legacy knowledge.”
“Then they go on and on about the equalization program, but they are looking at it in isolation. Quebeckers receive the least per capita, but this is always presented in a populist way that makes people think that Quebec is getting tons of money. I would like to remind members that we are paying 22% of the oil subsidies. There is no reason why Quebeckers should be giving gifts to western oil companies. When will the government understand that? Now let us talk about welcoming asylum seekers. Quebec took in 50% of the asylum seekers from among Canada's 10 provinces and three territories. The federal government is not even willing to reimburse our expenses. We were welcoming and generous. We welcomed people and we took care of them, yet the government refuses to reimburse the $700 million we spent on doing that. That is not right.”
“If that money is divided up fairly, there will not be much money for anyone. It might be enough to feed the parking meter, but I am not even sure about that. (1245) There is nothing in this budget for indigenous housing. Although we live in a G7 country, there are indigenous reserves that still do not have clean drinking water as we speak. That is appalling. Meanwhile, the Liberals are giving pretty speeches about how happy they are with the budget. My colleague spoke at length about ending oil subsidies, so I will just go over that quickly. I cannot understand how elected officials can sleep at night when they are refusing to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 and older, while handing out fiscal goodies to oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits.”
“Some will say that Parliament did recognize it, but it was an insignificant motion that means absolutely nothing. Just look at the actual Constitution. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the referendum, many people will say that Canada is the best country in the world. If it were the best country in the world, it would not have left one of the two nations out of the Constitution for more than 30 years. This goes back to 1982. It is awful. Sometimes we get tired of hearing these platitudes. With regard to infrastructure transfers, the government is investing a measly $9 billion. Since my colleague already talked about this issue, I will just address it briefly. This amount is not enough for infrastructure from coast to coast to coast, as the Liberals like to say.”
“I fail to understand why the media and society at large did not protest louder. We see egregious things like that happen when we sit in Parliament. Let us talk about loans for first-time homebuyers. The budget offers something, but it is not quite what we wanted. We need to do better to help people. We asked for transfers for housing, social housing in particular. The last time there were federal transfers for social housing, it took three years for Quebec to get its money because the federal government kept trying to attach strings to it. That does not bother the other provinces because they think that their government is the federal government. They accept that the money they are given comes with strings attached. In Quebec, we are the distinct society that everyone here refuses to recognize.”
“The government took money from Quebeckers to buy votes in the rest of Canada with cheques for a carbon tax that had not yet been paid. What makes this move all the more despicable is that we, in Quebec, are still acting responsibly. We still have a carbon exchange that is working well, and its alleged impact on grocery prices is not real. What the Conservatives keep saying about that is untrue. The proof is that the federal carbon tax was scrapped in the other provinces and yet grocery prices did not go down. What better proof could there be that the slogans we have been hearing for months are empty? In the meantime, our money was used for a rebate for people in the other provinces for a carbon tax that they had not paid. This was done to buy votes just days before the election.”
“However, if we take a closer look at the budget, if we read the fine print and really look at the details, it becomes clear that this budget is a sham and a scam. That is what my colleague was explaining earlier. The Liberals would have us believe that transfers to the provinces are expenditures on federal government assets. Come on. That is the first point I wanted to make. Let me turn to what the Bloc Québécois is calling for. My colleague spoke in detail about seniors and old age security. Once again, the answer we got was no. However, I want to reassure the people watching us at home that we will never give up on that, not until we get it. We will continue to ask for that. That is the first reason we are saying no to this budget. Next, I want to talk about the carbon tax and the robbery that occurred during the election.”
“We are generally respected in Parliament and seen as the adults in the room. We have been over this many times. I will prove my point by explaining why we are going to oppose this budget. To begin with, we asked for a little more fiscal discipline. We expected serious planning for the future. However, we are being presented with deficits larger than those of the Trudeau era. That is quite an achievement in and of itself. On top of that, the government is using some pretty creative accounting. We are being told that, yes, it is a big deficit, but really, at the end of the day, it is not all that huge because $45 billion of it counts as assets. We are being told that paying the mortgage is not the same as paying for groceries. We agree on the substance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I begin this speech in good spirits because my esteemed colleague and I just did some pretty impressive stickhandling there. I, too, am pleased to speak about the budget today and provide some explanations to the public. This is important because misinformation is going to circulate and, unfortunately, the two major parties are going to throw around empty slogans. They will say that the Bloc Québécois is only here to vote against everything that is proposed. As everyone knows, that is inherently false. The Bloc Québécois members are here to represent the interests of Quebeckers. Until we become a sovereign country, there must be enough of us here with significant influence to protect the interests of our people. That is what we are doing, and I think we are doing it extremely well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for her excellent, heartfelt speech, as usual. We used to have a Liberal government that drafted budgets to please the NDP. Now we have a Liberal government that drafts budgets to please the Conervatives. They never draft budgets to please Quebeckers. I would like to know how my colleague feels as a Quebecker in this Parliament. What would our best future look like?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals used to draft budgets to please the NDP. Now they are drafting budgets to please the Conservatives. However, there are never any budgets to meet the needs of Quebeckers. What Quebeckers want is a health care system that works. They want to be able to age without losing their purchasing power. They want affordable housing. They want young people to be able to buy a home like the generations before them. That is what we are dealing with in Quebec. Why are the Liberals threatening an election instead of meeting the needs of Quebeckers?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like the leader of the Bloc Québécois to tell us more about the rhetoric we heard this week. The government constantly claimed that it would be the fault of the nasty opposition parties if an election were to be triggered following a consultation process that was, let us face it, rather dubious and practically non-existent. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am getting some very good questions. I have been asked to explain something. If the government wants to take concrete action in response to what young people are calling for, it can increase the budgets for Canada summer jobs. This program is a great opportunity for young people to get that first work experience. Then they have something to write on their resumé that will get them hired by a second employer, because they have a certain amount of experience.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality in downtown Oshawa may not be the same as in Berthier—Maskinongé. That could be a true story; it is quite possible. I am not saying that things are perfect. It is like when we talk about agricultural producers who take on foreign workers. There was one example of abuse. The following week, they were all being called villains. Generally, temporary foreign workers cost employers more. It is not supposed to be their first choice. I assume that what my colleague is telling me is accurate, because I assume she is acting in good faith. However, I do not understand the employer in question. I think he should have advertised the position locally.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that statements like the ones made by the Leader of the Opposition can be dangerous when members of the public who are not fully informed take them for the truth, leading to a polarized society. Unfortunately, too many politicians use polarization to score points. However, I want to tell my colleague that I also consider it dangerous to radically and suddenly change a policy the way his government just did. I spoke about a transition period, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I am counting on my colleague to spread the word internally. We need to give our businesses with 20% foreign workers a buffer period to lower that proportion to 10%. All of the affected sectors will comply. They are all going to do it, but they need time so they can retain their most productive workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his very good question. Yes, there is a link, and I touched on it briefly in my speech. Since the cost of living has risen dramatically in recent years, the minimum wage is not enough to pay $2,000 in rent and buy enough food with decent protein content. Even if it is possible, people should not eat low-quality products that are not good for their health. Rather than doing that, young people are staying with their parents for a few more years and waiting. That might factor in. That is why I said earlier that it is important to provide adequate information and support during employment transition periods. When I talk about adequate support during the employment transition, I am referring to EI, which people contribute to but do not qualify for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and I thank him for his question. I have indeed noticed the same thing, and yet there is a certain logic to it; it is something to be expected. The job market is not great for everyone. If a unionized company with too many workers operates according to seniority, young workers with less permanent ties to their jobs will leave. There are solutions. For one thing, we need a decent employment insurance system that allows people to switch to something that matches their skills. There must surely be other positions of the same kind. We need to make it easier for people to get job training, return to school or take one-year reskilling programs. Sometimes, going back to school for three or four years can seem daunting, whereas a year might be just the thing.”
“If it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour of it. If it is not good, we will show goodwill and try to amend it to make it better.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Bourassa for his kind words and his intelligent question. We are always willing to collaborate when it comes to implementing good programs. Right now we are talking about training, and this is an area where nuance is important, because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. A good way to achieve this is by increasing transfers, not imposing conditions. The same can be said of health care. The federal government has a role to play, and it can play that role very well if it does so without overstepping the Constitution, which unfortunately is not always the case. I guarantee that we are here to work. When a bill is presented, we do not ask ourselves whether we like the person speaking or not, but rather whether the bill is good for Quebec.”
“The people who elected me to this place expect me to do my job intelligently and to represent the men and women of my riding properly and decently, setting aside my personal interests to advance their interests and for the betterment of our society. As a sovereignist party, I think we set an example here. Some people accuse us of being separatists and the like. While our mandate is to stand up for Quebec's interests until independence comes, we take our role seriously, without harming the rest of Canada. I think that deserves more appreciation than it seems to get. That is what I wanted to say. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.”
“The Bloc Québécois also introduced a bill to give people with serious illnesses the right to 50 weeks of benefits, but that has not yet been embraced by the federal government. That is not acceptable either. Another recommendation was to set the benefit rate at a minimum of 70%, with the calculation based the best 12 weeks with a minimum threshold of $500, because depending on the job, incomes can sometimes be very low, which amounts to having no employment insurance at all and putting people in poverty. Beyond all that, I urge that we, as parliamentarians, try to come up with long-term solutions for the next generation, that we try to understand the impacts and, for goodness' sake, that we avoid spouting easy rhetoric just for the sake of good Internet sound bites. I could be doing that too, but that is not why I am here.”
“Another recommendation was to “provide EI protection regardless of maternity, parental or paternity benefits received”. That problem is appalling. Quebec has a parental insurance plan, and I know of a number of women who went on maternity leave, went back to work and then lost their jobs a few weeks or months later. Then they were told that they had not accumulated enough hours over the past year to qualify for EI benefits. Maternity leave is supposed to be considered employment. It seems to me that this would be easy to fix. That is a serious injustice. There is something wrong with this system. Next, there was talk of improving the system, granting 50 weeks of benefits regardless of hours worked and trying to address EI's notorious spring gap. That is important, too.”
“Workers, however, cannot change their insurance. It is a federal program. It needs to be improved, because this is a flagrant injustice. What is more, we know where the EI surpluses go. They go into the consolidated fund. It is like a misappropriation of funds. Let us call a spade a spade. I do not think it is right. The group recommended that the government “establish an eligibility threshold of 350 hours or 13 weeks” and “abolish total exclusions from EI”. As we know, if someone quits their job, they are not eligible. Perhaps that could be changed, and they could be eligible for a shorter period of time, depending on the context. Sometimes people leave a job because of harassment or something like that. There may be good reasons. Once again, we need to be smart and measured.”
“Another group that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from was the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi. That was in October. That group submitted a brief with some very interesting recommendations for improving the EI system, including access to EI. As we know, nearly half the workers who contribute to EI will not have access to it if they lose their job. That is shocking. I have already said this in the House, but I challenge anyone to shop around for home insurance and find an agent who says that, if their house burned down, the company would not pay out half the time. As far as I am concerned, I would not choose that company. I would keep shopping around. If I pay for insurance, I want to be covered.”
“If someone is an engineer or a dentist, they will be more productive for society if they work in that field. However, during the buffer period between two jobs, that person needs to have time to get their bearings, apply for jobs, go to interviews and, a few months later, if they have not found anything suitable in their area, they might start sending out resumés in a neighbouring area. They might move to another region, who knows. However, if that person is unable to pay for groceries, they will work anywhere. Again, whatever job they take will be a noble one, but it will not match their qualifications. At that point, society as a whole loses out. We have been promised EI reform for more than 10 years.”
“If an engineer loses their job and it takes them a while to find another one, thanks to EI, they will not be forced to become a taxi driver, food delivery driver or anything else. Those are noble professions. That is not the issue here. However, those jobs do not match his skill level. I call that a waste of human resources. A guy who can work as an engineer is forced to do something else because there is no coverage for his adjustment period. Linda Lapointe: It is not just guys. Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I continue my speech without being interrupted every five seconds? The situation is that someone has taken a dislike to me for no good reason. (1830) As I was saying, EI allows people to work in jobs that match their qualifications.”
“When the government introduces unilateral measures such as reducing the number of foreign workers everywhere, it does so without analyzing the various economic sectors. It did not analyze regional differences. Perhaps no one thought about the entrepreneurs who keep our economy running on a daily basis. They deserve respect. It is important not to play politics with issues like this. There is one thing that could help our young people find suitable employment. It is not enough to simply tell a young person that there is a job available and that they should apply for it. They may not like that job. We have economic regulation tools at our disposal, including EI. What is the purpose of EI?”
“That is what the statistics are saying. He wondered if it is because of school dropout rates. Then he provided some explanations. The first factor he talked about was the economic context. With the economic slowdown, there is no doubt that the unemployment rate is going up in all categories. He also mentioned that, in Quebec, the youth unemployment rate is lower than in the rest of Canada. That is good news. He also talked about the advent of artificial intelligence, which is limiting the number of job opportunities in certain retail and customer service roles. It might be worth considering that aspect as well. There is also a regional breakdown that needs to be taken into account.”
“People need to be properly trained, and they need to be informed about the job market. I mentioned agri-food earlier. Not many people want to work in that sector, but there is not a lot of information available either. We also need to ask ourselves whether training programs are accessible to young people. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from Stéphane Pageau, who is a labour and public affairs adviser with the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. He presented his analysis of youth unemployment rates. I think he raised some good points, and I will share them here. First, he pointed out that the unemployment rate has indeed gone up and that the rise is more pronounced among young men than young women, it seems.”
“However, I do not know any business owner who hires foreign workers when they have access to local labour. I have not met any. Business owners do not do that because it costs them more. There is a ton of paperwork to fill out. Business owners are responsible for those workers and that often includes providing them with housing, or else actively helping them find housing. Most of these employers actually have parallel programs. They pay for French language courses themselves. They have support programs to help with the process of becoming a permanent resident. Enough with the easy shortcuts. Youth unemployment cannot be entirely blamed on the use of foreign workers. We need to settle this issue. I hope I have made that clear. However, there are challenges.”
“During those three years, that percentage could not increase; it would have to be reduced. This would allow those companies to keep their best employees. In private enterprise, one of the scarcest commodities, apart from time and money, is skilled labour. Training a worker who can be trusted and who can be delegated responsibilities, giving them the skills they need to keep the business running, is invaluable. Currently, business owners are heartbroken at having to let such workers go. (1825) It is important to act judiciously. That is what I am saying. The Leader of the Opposition has said that young people today are “generation screwed”. He says that many foreign workers are flooding the labour market, depriving young Canadians of jobs.”
“However, there are new workers who arrived before the Liberal government's policy change, who have been here for six months or a year, and who have already said that they are not happy, that they do not want to stay and that they want to leave. However, companies are forced to let their good, skilled employees go because the government has not given them a grace period. It seems to me that it is not that complicated to be smart about this and act with restraint. The proportion of foreign workers in most sectors needs to come back down to 10%, and there is agreement on that. However, this cannot happen in a year. In some cases, it might be appropriate to tell companies that they have three years to bring their percentage of foreign workers down to 20%.”
“The message that our critic and the Bloc Québécois want to convey is the need to be careful about how it is done. There should be an adjustment period. We asked for a grandfather clause and a buffer period, and the Quebec government asked for the same thing. It has been about a year, but we have yet to get a response from the federal government. Perhaps it is time to take action. Local businesses have a pool of 18% or 16% foreign workers. When I meet with them, they tell me they have no problem reducing that percentage to 10%, that they would still be able to operate and that it would be fine. However, they want some time. Some people have three-year permits that are about to expire, and they have been here for six years. They have learned French, they are doing really well and their children are going to school.”
“According to the latest polls that I have seen, 7% of Quebeckers and Canadians say they might consider a career in the agri-food industry someday. When people say they “might” consider that as a career “someday”, it means that not everyone in that 7% is likely to actually do it. There are some key sectors like those. In recent weeks, I met with representatives of a local welding business. They need foreign workers. Locally, there is a severe shortage of welders, of skilled workers. To score political points, our fine government is going to make quick decisions, such as expecting all sectors other than agriculture and agri-food to drop from 20% foreign workers to 10% overnight. I am not saying that I oppose reducing the number of foreign workers in certain sectors. In some sectors, reducing it is a good thing, and it could go down to 10%.”
“I try not to be a politician, but a statesman. As for women, they should strive to be stateswomen rather than politicians. Decisions must be made with the next generation in mind. That is our job. I am sorry, I am not trying to be rude, but to say that abolishing the temporary foreign worker program will solve youth unemployment is a simplistic argument. Can we really tell the agricultural community that we are abolishing the foreign worker program tomorrow morning? Come on. In fact, it should be even be extended, because the agri-food sector has a problem. We all know the difference: Agri-food processes what agriculture produces. The agri-food sector also has a tremendous need for foreign workers. Generally speaking, these jobs do not appeal to Quebeckers or Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague. I find her point of order a little strange, since I am talking about myself. I try to be a statesman. I am willing to try to be a stateswoman, but I think that would be difficult. I want to reassure my colleague that I am one of the most feminist members of this Parliament, I assure her, and I always defend women in politics. I will even share a bit of my background with my colleague. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was the president of the Bloc Québécois, and I worked hard to ensure that the Bloc had the highest percentage of female candidates in every election. Unless I am mistaken, I believe we succeeded again in the last election campaign. She can rest reassured on that point. I was talking about the fact that the farmer and I were chatting.”
“Grocery prices have not gone down. If axing the tax had really had the impact that the Conservatives have been talking about for months and months, Quebec would have scrapped its tax, too; we are not stupid. We do not want people to fall on hard times. We are capable of taking meaningful action by adopting a long-term vision and acting intelligently. Let us be statesmen rather than politicians. Does everyone know the difference between the two? A farmer told me this story. I told him I would remember his example because I liked it so much, and I have been striving to be a statesman ever since. Politicians make decisions based on the next election, whereas statesmen make all their decisions based on and informed by the next generation. That is our job—”
“It is important to look into this further. However, we should avoid engaging in petty populism by saying, for example, that the temporary foreign worker program must be scrapped and claiming that this will magically fix the youth unemployment rate. This would indeed be a magic formula. Those are nice, empty slogans to throw around but they do nothing. I am reminded of the Conservatives' last catchy slogan: Axe the carbon tax, it will lower the cost of food. People were yelling at each other over it. However, the carbon tax no longer exists in Canada outside Quebec. Did grocery prices go down? Have grocery prices in Canada outside Quebec gone up less than grocery prices in Quebec? In Quebec, we continue to be responsible, and we still have a price on pollution because we want to see long-term improvement. The answer is no.”
“Of course, it all depends on the age of the young people, but the younger they are, the more likely they are to be in precarious, low-skilled jobs, often in retail or something similar. These are often jobs that people do not want to keep in the long term and end up leaving. There is a relatively normal turnover rate that needs to be taken into account. At the same time, there is another important phenomenon: The cost of living has been very high for the past two years, food inflation is rampant and wages are not keeping pace. Imagine what it is like to earn minimum wage. These jobs are unattractive. This is also one of the reasons why young people may be refusing to take them. There are a lot of factors involved, and it is quite complex. At the same time, job offers for young people have declined over the past few summers.”
“In fact, the current unemployment rate is the highest it has been since 2010. The youth unemployment rate reached 14.7%, while the rate for the entire active population was 7.1% in September 2025. I would like to remind the House that the official unemployment rate always underestimates the actual number of unemployed people. I hope that my fellow MPs are already aware of that but, if not, I am happy to share that information with them. The unemployment rate primarily takes into account people who are registered with EI and who are looking for work. It does not take into account those who are discouraged by, on the sidelines of or disheartened with a job market where the deck is stacked against them. The actual unemployment rate is therefore probably higher than the numbers show.”